Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

And I'll give you a wager Tim, if the Rosetta mission is a succes, no malfunction and so on, and there is indeed the required amount of water to account for the tail, then I'll happily come over and eat my shorts.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

We are aware of several workers who have published discussions of the role of electromagnetism and plasma in the universe under the generic title
, “Electric Universe” (EU). We emphasise that we are not involved with this group of researchers and we neither support nor oppose the EU ideas
.

Seems there are but of course you already know!

Good one sport

So tell us about the electric fields at comet 67P and Halley

Electric Fields and Cold Electrons in the Vicinity of Comet HalleyH.Laakso

Twelve years you've been peddling your tired, irrelevent, inconsequential, "anti-science" religion without anything to show for it! Twelve years with no science! Twelve years with no predictive model! Twelve years with no supporting evidence! Twelve years with no mainstream converts! Pathetic really! Sol88, if you can't convince a mainstream scientist like me that your electric comet has utility and research potential, your model will never grow beyond these forum walls? Seriously! When can we expect a properly peer-reviewed 'electric comet' paper in A&A or MNRAS or ...? What? No cojones? Not a surprize! Best not to expose your electric comet to peer-review! Obviously there is nothing there that is worthy of mainstream's time and attention! Question for you 'ec' expert -- How many people think your 'electric comet' is part of a scam?

And it only gets harder from here!

As I've stated previously, mainstream science cannot be used to describe your electric comet! Why? Your electric comet violates fundamental laws of physics, and ignores decades of observational evidence! Your electric comet is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! Unless you and your 'eu/es/ec' buddies develope new physics, your electric comet will only be modelled using myth and magic! That is not science! Again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO MAINSTREAM SCIENCE that can help you model your electric rock! If YOUR electric comet did not violate fundamental laws of physics, then MY mainstream physics would be applicable ... and progress would have been made already!

For decades, there's been no scientific progress on your electric comet because your electric comet is not science! Now, why is that so hard to comprehend?

Do you ever take the time to think about the bigger picture and your lasting legacy? Do you ever take the time to ask yourself the fundamental 'philosophical' questions,

Could everything I believe about the electric comet be wrong?Could everything I believe about the electric star be wrong?Could everything I believe about the electric universe be wrong?

The reason I use the word 'believe' is that YOU have shown no sign of 'knowing or understanding' your own electric comet model, or the mainstream physics, chemistry, and observational data that consistently and continuously refutes every aspect of your fantasy!

Would you like to try again? After all, Part IV of your useless, delusional ISF thread should be the charm, right?

AS THE 'electric comet' EXPERT, YOU HAVE PUT ON A PATHETIC SHOW, Sol88! Where's your evidence?

How about we refresh everyone's memory regarding your ongoing failures to address fundamental flaws with YOUR electric comet model ...! Because YOU claim to understand the electric comet, I'll ask all the questions! As the resident 'ec' expert, you must answer all my questions! Fair? This is, after all your 'electric comet' thread! I still don't know why we have to keep reminding you of this fact!

01) Could any principles or physics of the electric comet be WRONG?
02) Could any principles or physics of the electric star be WRONG?
03) Could any principles or physics of the electric universe be WRONG?
04) Could every principle of the electric universe be WRONG?05) Does gravity play any part in orbital mechanics? *1*
06) Does gravity play any part in star formation processes?
07) Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in orbital mechanics?
08) Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in star formation processes?
09) Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occuring in the core?
10) Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occuring on the surface?
11) Are asteroids made of rock?
12) Are asteroids made of volatile ices and dusts?
13) Are comets made of rock?
14) Are comets made of volatile ices and dusts?
15) Is sublimation (i.e., a state change from solid to gas) a real physical process?16) Is eccentricity important to comet charging and discharging processes? *2*
17) Is electric discharge machining responsible for terrestrial geomorphology (e.g., the Grand Canyon)?
18) Does a magnetic field always indicate the presence of a current?
19) Do you know where the water ice line is for our star at this point in its life cycle?
20) Do you know what a sedimentary tidal rhythmite is?

*1* I believe you have inadvertantly answered this question in the affirmative. Gravity does play a role in orbital mechanics! I wonder if gravity might also be more important than electrostatics/electrodynamics by several orders of magnitude?
*2* Absolutely NOT! NO VIABLE PHYSICAL MECHANISM OR PREDICTIVE MODEL HAS EVER BEEN PROPOSED BY THE 'ec' COMMUNITY TO PROVE THIS CLAIM! The concept is truly laughable! The concept is part of an ongoing series of epic FAILURES!

Do you remember ignoring this fundamental 'ec' modelling requirement?

Using electrostatics, electrodynamics, and orbital mechanics, show how eccentricity is responsible for the charging and discharging of your electric comet!

In case it was not obvious, eccentricity has nothing to do with your electric comet!

Restated: The idea that eccentricity is, in any way, responsible for the charging and discharging of electric rocks is obviously WRONG! Thus, Sol88 is WRONG! Wally is WRONG! Donny is WRONG! Shall I go on?

Do you recall the table of 'randomly selected' orbital data required to PREDICT electric comet charging and discharging behaviour? This is but one of a thousand glaring FAILURES on your part! All your spouting about plasma physics is meaningless until you have resolved all the outstanding foundational issues associated with your electric comet! By the way, what are your plasma physics credentials anyway? You have a PhD from where? Sol88, your displayed knowledge and understanding of plasma physics is laughable and 'always' WRONG! Everyone that reads this thread will come to the conclusion that Sol88 is WRONG!

For your 'ec' expert consideration! Please note, this table has been expanded by five records to further illustrate that ECCENTRICITY PLAYS ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN THE BEHAVIOUR OF YOUR electric rock!

Object ID

a

e

i

q

Q

Comet 372P/McNaught

4.496

0.1539

9.52

3.80

5.19

Comet 367P/Catalina

3.511

0.2800

8.46

2.53

4.49

Comet 116P/Wild 4

3.478

0.3725

3.61

2.19

4.78

Asteroid 2001 KD55

3.344

0.6235

9.98

1.26

5.43

Asteroid 2014 LS26

3.364

0.6289

10.86

1.25

5.48

Asteroid 2000 DQ110

3.361

0.6297

58.28

1.25

5.48

Asteroid 2016 RP33

3.334

0.6343

23.04

1.22

5.45

Asteroid 2014 XN40

3.381

0.6349

14.20

1.24

5.53

Asteroid 1986 RA

3.327

0.6358

19.13

1.21

5.44

Comet 67P/C-G

3.463

0.6414

7.05

1.24

5.69

Asteroid 2014 HW177

3.302

0.6437

13.00

1.18

5.43

Asteroid 1995 QN3

3.300

0.6450

14.79

1.17

5.43

Asteroid 2014 HY196

3.526

0.6561

42.29

1.21

5.84

Asteroid 2016 WX8

3.529

0.6572

13.29

1.21

5.85

Asteroid 2016 LA2

3.565

0.6748

17.43

1.16

5.97

Asteroid 2011 YY28

3.388

0.6765

7.35

1.10

5.68

Comet 2P/Encke

2.218

0.8471

11.76

0.33

4.11

Comet 1P/Halley

17.83

0.9671

162.3

0.59

35.1

Columns: a = Semi-major axis (AU), e = Eccentricity, i = Inclination, q = Perihelion (AU), Q = Apihelion (AU). All data extracted from the JPL SBDB. Please note, the tabulated data, above, is a trivial subset of a greater whole. Furthermore, two of six cometary bodies are classified as JFC's, three of six are ETC's, and one is an HTC. Can you identify which of the three families the six listed comets belong to, and why? What does your 'ec' model say about comet families? Has the 'ec' community ever discussed comet families?

So, Sol88, what's WRONG with your electric comet? Everyone that reads this will KNOW that eccentricity plays no role in your 'ec' model! That means that you, Sol88, are obviously WRONG! Again!

You know, ... it's OK to admit that you are clueless, Sol88! Unfortunately, religions are NEVER WRONG! Sol88, your 'eu/es/ec' religion appears to have ALL the answers, yet cannot show me, in mathematical terms, how eccentricity is important in electric rock behaviour! SCIENCE FAILURE! And religious success!

Comets are made of volatile ices and dust! The volatile ices sublimate when insolated! FACT!

The data in the above table is sufficient proof that eccentricity is not involved in the charging and discharging of electric rocks! A list of 18 objects --- with eccentricities ranging from 0.1539 to 0.9671! Only six are deemed to be comets! Why? Because comets are made of volatile ices and dust with the ices being sufficiently close to the surface to allow sublimation when insolated! That's a fact!

It's your model, Sol88! You fix it! And forget about plasmas! You have a thousand much more fundamental problems to resolve before we can start talking about your pathetic lack of knowledge and skills when dealing with plasmas! Remember, you still have an unresolved density problem! And I've so many more unanswerable questions just for you!

Remember, Sol88, the internet never forgets ... ANYTHING! In twelve years now, you have FAILED to provide any tangible evidence to support your religious delusion that you try to pass off as science! Truly LAUGHABLE! Sadly PATHETIC! By the way, how are your two kids? As a parent, I do hope you've allowed them to pursue their own religious fantasies and adventures without drawing them into your steaming, 'electric excrement' soaked mess!

Oh! And FYI! MHD is still a valid modelling tool when dealing with specific plasma structures around comets! If you understance vector calculus, we can discuss several ways in which kinetic models can fail around comets!

Sol88! You're really not very good at this 'science' game are you? I fear too much 'eu/es/ec' religion?

Remember, this forum is called the ISF! The key word being Skeptic! Have you ever wondered why you FAIL so miserably to convince others of the validity of your electric BS? And why would this mainstream scientist call it BS? Have you ever wondered? Have you ever thought about how ill-conceived and backwards your model looks to others who actually have scientific credentials? No? Not a thinker? Not a skeptic? A religious zealot, perhaps? Clueless, perhaps?

Do you remember my three 'comet density' posts? Let's remind the internet of your ongoing FAILURES to comprehend and address this issue, shall we?

Comet Density: Part 1/3 Here, I asked you, Sol88, to review the 21/Lutetia data gathered by the RSI team to confirm the physics and methods used for determining mass are sound! Do you have anything to contribute? No? Your silence = FAILURE!

REALITY! There is nothing wrong with the physics, methods, and measured mass for 21/Lutetia!

Comet Density: Part 2/3 In this post, I asked you, Sol88, the resident 'ec' expert, to show how the RSI data has been "fooled" to produce a mass that is 5x smaller than that required of your model! Do you have any evidence of errors to contribute? No? Your silence = FAILURE! On top of FAILURE!

REALITY! There is nothing wrong with the physics, methods, and measured mass for 67P! Radio science experiments (conducted by dozens of spacecraft) are the most reliable, in situ way of determining mass!

And it only gets harder from here!

Comet Density: Part 3/3 Guess what! Laboratory data! Here, I asked you, Sol88, to review the KOSI density results and explain how the experimental evidence could be wrong! Measured density values range from 400 to 600 kg/m3 which is consistent with that measured for the handful of comets encountered to date! Perhaps there is something wrong with YOUR electric dirt clod model? Any thoughts? Counter arguments? No? Have you got the SAFIRE folks working on an "electric comet simulation" as I had proposed earlier? No? Your silence = FAILURE! On top of compounding FAILURE!

As just noted, radio science experiments or investigations are the most reliable way of determining mass! You are the only one making the wild, unsubstantiated claim that something MUST be WRONG! What makes you so damned smart? And what happens to your electric comet, if you're WRONG? Remember, the mainstream science community has decades of evidence to show that comets are made of volatile ices and dust! There is no evidence to support your claim that comets are actually made of rock and that some magical process is responsible for the perceived error in mass ... but then, only at comets!

Your assignment, Sol88 (resident 'ec' expert), is to find and explain the errors in ALL the radio science data collected by literally dozens of spacecraft, and write the paper! Are you up to the challenge? We are talking about millions and millions of data points here! Now, I am perplexed! Why is Sol88 so much smarter than the thousands of mainstream scientists and engineers that build and use these instruments everyday, and yet he cannot provide the specific and appropriate evidence that there is something wrong with 'electromagnetic' radio science experiments!

Remember! It's your model, Sol88! You fix it!

Aside#1! The Radio Science Subsystem (RSS) on Cassini was used to determine and/or refine the following masses and densities ...

Object

Mass (kg)

Density (kg/m3)

e*

i*

Saturn

5.6851E+26

687.

0.0565

2.485

Mimas

3.7493E+19

1148.

0.0196

1.574

Enceladus

1.08022E+20

1609.

0.0047

0.019

Tethys

6.17449E+20

984.

0.0001

1.12

Dione

1.095452E+21

1478.

0.0022

0.019

Rhea

2.306518E+21

1236.

0.0013

0.345

Titan

1.3452E+23

1880.

0.0288

0.349

Iapetus

1.805635E+21

1088.

0.0286

15.47

* Included for completeness! Note, for the seven moons, the eccentricity and inclination are given with respect to Saturn's equator.

Any clue on what this table represents? Any clue on why you can't answer my questions? Any clue why all the densities are consistently less than rock?

Aside #2! The bulk density of 67P was recently revised following the release of a meter-scale shape model! The updated bulk density follows from ...

Now! Will you look at that! Four sig figs! Damn! That's mighty fine! Comets are composed of volatile ices and dust! What we don't know, and can't predict, is the exact proportions of all the ices and dusts! I wonder if the KOSI experiments might point us in the right direction?

Originally Posted by Indagator

Sol88! My plan is to kill the electric comet! Your plan should be to prove its worthy of scientific study! Let's dance! Or you can continue to run and hide and misdirect! Your thread! Your choice! I'm not going away!

How about we refresh everyone's memory regarding your ongoing failures to address fundamental flaws with YOUR electric comet model ...! Because YOU claim to understand the electric comet, I'll ask all the questions! As the resident 'ec' expert, you must answer all my questions! Fair? This is, after all your 'electric comet' thread! I still don't know why we have to keep reminding you of this fact!

This is how you and I are going to play this game! It's your model! You explain it! You want to claim any kind of mainstream support? Convince this mainstream scientist! No problem! Right? NO! Big problem!

Originally Posted by Indagator

Do you remember ignoring this fundamental 'ec' modelling requirement?

Using electrostatics, electrodynamics, and orbital mechanics, show how eccentricity is responsible for the charging and discharging of your electric comet!

In case it was not obvious, eccentricity has nothing to do with your electric comet!

If eccentricity plays no role in your electric comet, what other problems might we find?

Sol88! When are you going to get your head out of Thornhill's ass and answer my questions about YOUR 'electric comet' model! It is time for the electric comet to die! It is time for this lie to die!

PROVE to me that your electric comet is not IMPOSSIBLE! Build one in a laboratory! With nothing more than water, dry ice, and some dust swept from under the bed, I can make a simple comet simulant! Thousands of 'students' do that very thing every year! How about you, Sol88! How do YOU build a real, working electric comet simulant? I'll wager real money that no one on this planet could ever recreate an 'electric comet' in the lab! Why? The concept is unscientific! The physical processes required are IMPOSSIBLE!

If you want recognition for this ... electric comet crap, PROVE IT HAS MERIT! PROVE IT to this mainstream scientist!

Quit with the lying, woo boy. Not a single paper has discovered rock or electric discharges. Not a single one. Why do you have to lie so much? Afraid of losing your religion? The electric comet is dead. It was never alive. It is unscientific, puerile woo.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

In addition to sublimation, two of the more common activity generation mechanisms that have been inferred are impact disruption and rotational destabilization. Active asteroids for which comet-like activity is not at least partially attributed to sublimation, and instead appears to be due to impacts, rotation or other disruptive effects, are often referred to as disrupted asteroids [47]. For detailed discussions of these objects, interested readers are referred to recent reviews of MBCs [45,48] and of active asteroids in general [43], though I will highlight key aspects of these objects here.

The work of how many decent, respected, and in some cases, late scientists are you prepared to crap all over with your ignorance, lies, obfuscation and cherry-picking, to try to prop up your idiotic belief system? You ought to be ashamed, but I doubt very much that an evangelical like you has such a care. Go tell it to the idiots at Thunderdolts, you are finished here. Yes?

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Hsieh's paper does nothing to harm mainstream science. On the other hand, it causes enormous problems for the electric idiots. I cannot believe Sol would want us to see this damning paper! Maybe he didn't read it properly. That would be par for the course.
Let's take section (ii) Main-belt comets;

Quote:

First recognized as a new class of cometary objects in 2006 [44], MBCs have attracted interest because the unexpected present-day ice (given their location in the warm inner solar system) implied by their apparently sublimation-driven activity means that they could potentially be used as compositional probes of inner solar system ice and also as a means of testing hypotheses that icy objects from the main-belt region of the solar system could have played a significant role in the primordial delivery of water to the terrestrial planets.

The first of these MBCs to be discovered was 133P/ Elst-Pizzaro, by Dave Jewitt and Hsieh. Are the electric idiots claiming this activity to be due to electrical woo? In which case we need to look at the orbital parameters of 133P;

Aphelion: 3.67 AU
Perihelion: 2.65 AU
Eccentricity: 0.16

So, can we take that as a minimum e for electric woo to occur? In which case, what about the many thousands of other objects with e = or > 0.16 that do not show any activity?
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

Getting very tired of this stupid game you are playing.
Unless you can provide a real, qualitative and quantitative model of the EC, there is absolutely nothing to discuss.
You will just claim any paper that mentions electric field (no matter what kind) as a confirmation of your double layer obsession and of the necessary enormous electric fields that the EC needs to discharge machine the surface of the comet (without actually being visible in the magnetometer data, now THAT is magic).

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

This short movie shares an impression of some of the scientific highlights from Rosetta's mission at Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, as told through the voices of scientists working with Rosetta's vast dataset, two years after the mission ended.

A stupid reply to jonesdave116's post to derail rom his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88

Are you saying can not happen?

A stupid reply to jonesdave116's post to derail rom his electric comet insanity.

jonesdave116 labels a Sol88 post Complete crap because Sol88 has no rational, physical mechanism to release H20 from a delusion of "hydrated rock". It is up to Sol88 to supply a rational, physical mechanism. His electric comet insanity has irrational things that do whatever he imagines , e.g. invisible electrical discharges.

Repeats his "ROCK" (actual rock when in uppercase) lie to derail from his electric comet insanity.

The opinion of 1 scientist (Michael A’Hearn) written in a discussion document that is that our understanding is evolving toward comets being made of more dust than ices which he describes as "mostly rock" (note the lower case which is the use of geological terms for cometary features).

In this review presented at the Royal Society meeting, "Cometary Science After Rosetta", I present an overview of studies of small solar system objects that exhibit properties of both asteroids and comets (with a focus on so-called active asteroids). Sometimes referred to as "transition objects", these bodies are perhaps more appropriately described as "continuum objects", to reflect the notion that rather than necessarily representing actual transitional evolutionary states between asteroids and comets, they simply belong to the general population of small solar system bodies that happen to exhibit a continuous range of observational, physical, and dynamical properties. Continuum objects are intriguing because they possess many of the properties that make classical comets interesting to study (e.g., relatively primitive compositions, ejection of surface and subsurface material into space where it can be more easily studied, and orbital properties that allow us to sample material from distant parts of the solar system that would otherwise be inaccessible), while allowing us to study regions of the solar system that are not sampled by classical comets.

The paper is about asteroids that have comet-like activity. Some have ices sublimating as in classical comets. Some have comet-like activity from other mechanisms, e.g. impacts or rapid rotation throwing off dust.

4. Conclusion In summary, the population of small bodies in our solar system today, including both minor planets and classical comets, is far less well-delineated into distinct groups of objects than the classical paradigm might have led one to believe in the past. These objects instead appear to occupy a continuum spanning the full range of observational, physical and dynamical properties classically attributed solely either to asteroids or comets. We now know of currently actively sublimating main-belt objects that could have originated either in the asteroid belt or in the outer solar system, and objects displaying comet-like activity that may have no volatile ice content whatsoever. We have found objects composed of inner-asteroid-belt-like material on long-period comet-like orbits, and active objects on comet-like orbits that may in fact originate from the asteroid belt. We also now recognize that dormant comets may be found in both comet-like and un-comet-like orbits. The population of continuum objects is extraordinarily diverse, with each type of object holding the potential for revealing exciting new insights about our solar system due to their unique sets of overlapping comet- and asteroid-like properties. Given this complexity and the growing interest in addressing the many questions that it has raised thus far, it is likely that many more interesting findings await us in this rapidly developing field in the coming years.

...Completely ignores Henry H. Hsieh paper grabs his bat and ball and goes home to Mumsie.

A total inability to comprehend the English in posts and the Henry H. Hsieh paper

This is a thread about Sol88's electric comet insanity. jonesdave116 is writing and asking questions about Sol88's electric comet insanity.

The Henry H. Hsieh review can be ignored for this thread because it is not about Sol88's electric comet insanity. What is really stupid about citing the paper is that it is about "comets" that are made of actual ROCK and Sol88 was conceding that comets are ices and dust .

Asteroid–comet continuum objects in the solar system
The paper is about asteroids made of actual rock that have comet-like activity. Some have patches of ices sublimating as in classical comets. Some have comet-like activity from other mechanisms, e.g. impacts or rapid rotation throwing off dust.

A deluded "Every new paper points toward the electric comet" lie when no new cometary paper has supported his electric comet insanity.

It is a deluded lie because the papers he has cited are about comets made of ices dust that formed in the early Solar System. No sign of actual rock, terrestrial rock, rock from rocky planets, massive charging up of comets by the solar electric field, electrical discharges, EMD, double layers, Birkeland currents.

Are you ready for your next assignment, Sol88? Remember, the internet is watching and waiting to see what you will do! Will you defend your electric rock? Or will you ignore my queries and cower in a dark corner hoping the scary scientist goes away?

Part 1: Please describe in detail, what you see in this OSIRIS NAC image!

Can this image be used to support your electric comet?

Part 2: Based on this image,
A) Determine the distance between Rosetta and 67P.
B) Determine the distance between 67P and the Sun.
C) Determine the temperature of the CCD.
D) Determine the temperature of the comets surface.
E) Estimate the strength of the electric field at the terminator.

Which fundamental laws are being violated and which physical processes are impossible?

Try understanding what your electric comet insanity is, Sol88. There is no "Standard lab testable plasma physics" in it. Physics is being violated by the electric comet insanity.

Newton's law of gravitation
Comets have densities less than that of water, not that of rock.

Newton's laws of motion: F=ma
Outgassing accelerates comets as if they had densities less than that of water, not that of rock.

Conservation of momentum.
Planets whizzing around the Solar System according to whatever your delusions demand.

Maybe conservation of angular momentum?
Planets whizzing around the Solar System according to whatever your delusions demand and magically returning to exactly the same obits and rotations?

Copernican principle
The electric comet insanity has every planet except the Earth whizzing around the Solar System. The Earth has been in a similar orbit ever since life began ~4 billion years ago.

Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.
Physically impossible electrical discharges that require the breakdown of an insulating medium that does not exist at comets.
EDM that needs a liquid insulator!
Electrical discharges emit light but jets are visible through reflected light (are dark in night side shadows).
Electric discharges emit specific x-rays which are not detected at comets.

"Standard lab testable plasma physics" !
Plasmas conduct, thus no electrical discharges in plasma.
The magnetic and physical turbulence of the environment makes double layers physically impossible. The Debye length make these physically impossible DLs insignificant (maybe 100 meter scales in a coma the size of the Earth!).
Birkeland currents needs a magnetosphere like the only ones detected around the Earth. Comes have no magnetosphere like the Earth!

Try understanding what your electric comet insanity is, Sol88. There is no "Standard lab testable plasma physics" in it. Physics is being violated by the electric comet insanity.

Newton's law of gravitation
Comets have densities less than that of water, not that of rock.

Newton's laws of motion: F=ma
Outgassing accelerates comets as if they had densities less than that of water, not that of rock.

Conservation of momentum.
Planets whizzing around the Solar System according to whatever your delusions demand.

Maybe conservation of angular momentum?
Planets whizzing around the Solar System according to whatever your delusions demand and magically returning to exactly the same obits and rotations?

Copernican principle
The electric comet insanity has every planet except the Earth whizzing around the Solar System. The Earth has been in a similar orbit ever since life began ~4 billion years ago.

Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.
Physically impossible electrical discharges that require the breakdown of an insulating medium that does not exist at comets.
EDM that needs a liquid insulator!
Electrical discharges emit light but jets are visible through reflected light (are dark in night side shadows).
Electric discharges emit specific x-rays which are not detected at comets.

"Standard lab testable plasma physics" !
Plasmas conduct, thus no electrical discharges in plasma.
The magnetic and physical turbulence of the environment makes double layers physically impossible. The Debye length make these physically impossible DLs insignificant (maybe 100 meter scales in a coma the size of the Earth!).
Birkeland currents needs a magnetosphere like the only ones detected around the Earth. Comes have no magnetosphere like the Earth!

Sol88! You're really not very good at this 'science' game are you? I fear too much 'eu/es/ec' religion?

Remember, this forum is called the ISF! The key word being Skeptic! Have you ever wondered why you FAIL so miserably to convince others of the validity of your electric BS? And why would this mainstream scientist call it BS? Have you ever wondered? Have you ever thought about how ill-conceived and backwards your model looks to others who actually have scientific credentials? No? Not a thinker? Not a skeptic? A religious zealot, perhaps? Clueless, perhaps?

Do you remember my three 'comet density' posts? Let's remind the internet of your ongoing FAILURES to comprehend and address this issue, shall we?

Comet Density: Part 1/3 Here, I asked you, Sol88, to review the 21/Lutetia data gathered by the RSI team to confirm the physics and methods used for determining mass are sound! Do you have anything to contribute? No? Your silence = FAILURE!

REALITY! There is nothing wrong with the physics, methods, and measured mass for 21/Lutetia!

Comet Density: Part 2/3 In this post, I asked you, Sol88, the resident 'ec' expert, to show how the RSI data has been "fooled" to produce a mass that is 5x smaller than that required of your model! Do you have any evidence of errors to contribute? No? Your silence = FAILURE! On top of FAILURE!

REALITY! There is nothing wrong with the physics, methods, and measured mass for 67P! Radio science experiments (conducted by dozens of spacecraft) are the most reliable, in situ way of determining mass!

And it only gets harder from here!

Comet Density: Part 3/3 Guess what! Laboratory data! Here, I asked you, Sol88, to review the KOSI density results and explain how the experimental evidence could be wrong! Measured density values range from 400 to 600 kg/m3 which is consistent with that measured for the handful of comets encountered to date! Perhaps there is something wrong with YOUR electric dirt clod model? Any thoughts? Counter arguments? No? Have you got the SAFIRE folks working on an "electric comet simulation" as I had proposed earlier? No? Your silence = FAILURE! On top of compounding FAILURE!

As just noted, radio science experiments or investigations are the most reliable way of determining mass! You are the only one making the wild, unsubstantiated claim that something MUST be WRONG! What makes you so damned smart? And what happens to your electric comet, if you're WRONG? Remember, the mainstream science community has decades of evidence to show that comets are made of volatile ices and dust! There is no evidence to support your claim that comets are actually made of rock and that some magical process is responsible for the perceived error in mass ... but then, only at comets!

Your assignment, Sol88 (resident 'ec' expert), is to find and explain the errors in ALL the radio science data collected by literally dozens of spacecraft, and write the paper! Are you up to the challenge? We are talking about millions and millions of data points here! Now, I am perplexed! Why is Sol88 so much smarter than the thousands of mainstream scientists and engineers that build and use these instruments everyday, and yet he cannot provide the specific and appropriate evidence that there is something wrong with 'electromagnetic' radio science experiments!

Remember! It's your model, Sol88! You fix it!

Aside#1! The Radio Science Subsystem (RSS) on Cassini was used to determine and/or refine the following masses and densities ...

Object

Mass (kg)

Density (kg/m3)

e*

i*

Saturn

5.6851E+26

687.

0.0565

2.485

Mimas

3.7493E+19

1148.

0.0196

1.574

Enceladus

1.08022E+20

1609.

0.0047

0.019

Tethys

6.17449E+20

984.

0.0001

1.12

Dione

1.095452E+21

1478.

0.0022

0.019

Rhea

2.306518E+21

1236.

0.0013

0.345

Titan

1.3452E+23

1880.

0.0288

0.349

Iapetus

1.805635E+21

1088.

0.0286

15.47

* Included for completeness! Note, for the seven moons, the eccentricity and inclination are given with respect to Saturn's equator.

Any clue on what this table represents? Any clue on why you can't answer my questions? Any clue why all the densities are consistently less than rock?

Aside #2! The bulk density of 67P was recently revised following the release of a meter-scale shape model! The updated bulk density follows from ...

Now! Will you look at that! Four sig figs! Damn! That's mighty fine! Comets are composed of volatile ices and dust! What we don't know, and can't predict, is the exact proportions of all the ices and dusts! I wonder if the KOSI experiments might point us in the right direction?

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.